Beyond a diplomatic defeat: A strategic disaster!

While we were preoccupied with domestic issues—the operation against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, the potential arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the public taking to the streets, and Özgür Özel performing mental gymnastics to make the impossible seem possible just to keep the opposition base dependent on him—Turkey suffered perhaps the most critical blow in its foreign policy history.

It is not just a minor setback...

The Turkic Republics in Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—recognized the Greek Cypriot administration as the 'Republic of Cyprus,' rejected the existence of the TRNC, ignored the Turkish Cypriots, and accepted them as part of the Greek side.

Yet, for years, we held onto the hope that one day our friendly and brotherly nations would recognize the TRNC.

As long as the 'conjuncture' was favorable.

But with Europe stepping in, our hopes were dashed, and we were left empty-handed.

At the beginning of the month, the EU-Central Asia summit was held in Samarkand.

Three months before the summit, Uzbekistan; a month and a half ago, Kazakhstan; and two weeks ago, Turkmenistan appointed ambassadors to the Republic of Cyprus, that is, the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus.

In reality, the issue was not new.

While conducting negotiations with the EU, they kept their cards close to their chest and did not inform either Turkey or the Organization of Turkic States, yet the process was as clear as day. Therefore, although the matter should have been under discussion in Turkey for at least three months, it remained in the background of the agenda because speaking out did not serve the government's interests.

Let us write with candor; what we have here is not merely a diplomatic defeat for Turkey. We are facing the most significant "strategic" debacle in Cyprus policy since 1963. This is because, at the summit, explicit support was given to UN Security Council resolutions that characterize Turkey as an occupier in the north of the island and call for the non-recognition of the TRNC. They have shoveled dirt into the well that the Foreign Ministry has been painstakingly digging for years.

The signatures placed under the sentence "We reaffirm our loyalty to the relevant UN resolutions" in the final declaration have gone down in history as the document of this debacle.

The Turkic Republics promised the EU that they would not recognize the TRNC, even though the TRNC had been accepted as an "observer member" of the Organization of Turkic States just a few years ago.

In return, the EU opened up economic aid packages.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU would invest 12 billion Euros in the 5 Central Asian countries within the scope of a "strategic partnership."

It has everything you could ask for!

It appears that the circumstances surrounding the Cyprus issue are manifesting in an extremely unfavorable manner. This is not only a political blow for the Turkish Cypriot people but a psychological one as well. It seems they will feel the distress of being isolated from the world even more acutely from now on.

So, what did we do?

Nothing!

The Foreign Ministry, which possesses the ability to issue a statement within minutes even regarding a broken motor in a water well in Uganda, has—whether out of bewilderment, anger, or simply not knowing what to say—fallen silent like a bird that has eaten mulberries.

These things cannot be achieved by empty bluster.

It is impossible that Ankara was unaware of the negotiations being conducted with the EU. Therefore, Turkey should have intervened from the very beginning; even if it could not have prevented the EU from reaching out to the Central Asian Republics, it should have at least blocked the adoption of a decision on the Cyprus issue.

Could it have succeeded? Let us not forget that Tayyip Erdoğan holds a powerful 'refugee' card against Europe. Moreover, he has recently shown an eagerness to take on the role of Europe's gendarme. If he had wanted to, he could have put these on the table and negotiated effectively.

He could have even garnered domestic support by shouting 'Hey, Europe!'

He did not do it, he did not want to do it; perhaps he thought it was time to completely write off the TRNC, or perhaps he simply did not want to spend such an important trump card on Cyprus, other than to guarantee the continuation of his own power—we do not know.

The foundations and the spirit of unity of the Organization of Turkic States have been shaken, Turkey's power in Central Asia has been broken, its vision has collapsed, and the EU has filled the vacuum in the region—who cares!

The way they battered Denktaş before the Annan Plan was put to a referendum in 2004 is still fresh in our memories. It would be naive to think that those who would not have raised a voice against the disappearance of the TRNC back then would be genuinely concerned about this issue today.

Let us set aside the emotional aspect of the matter, the violation of the fundamental principles of the Organization of Turkic States, and their disregard for the Turkish Cypriot people and the ideal of the Turkic world.

Let us try to look at it through a different lens.

Halil Akıncı, one of the people who knows these matters best in Turkey, says:

“We hardly have the face to cast blame. Turkic solidarity is a long process. It is not easy for us to reach the stage of sacrificing our own interests for the interests or politics of another Turkic country, or for the common interest of Turkicness. It takes some time for a nation that has spent a significant part of its history fighting within itself to reach a level of cooperation. While Turkey, knowing it won't happen, turns somersaults just to appear in the same picture as those in Europe, let alone become a member, isn't it natural for Turkic states to cooperate with the EU to balance the influence of Russia and China and attract investment? Does a country that has been selling out the Turkish Cypriots for years—first by selling out Denktaş and then by accepting the Annan Plan—have the right to criticize them for turning to paths that we find unpleasant for this purpose?”